When we last encountered NRSP director Tom Harris he was busy denying he was associated with the High Park Group (a PR company that lobbies for energy companies). Now, in a totally surprising twist, Jim Hoggan reveals:
Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."
I'm shocked. Truly I am.
We share in your astonishment tim -- that is, if you were being sarcastic, which is always hard to detect in writing.
I think that we can term this emotion "Shill Shock!", which describes the surprise when a suspected industry whore is discovered to be on the take.
"I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that there is gambling at Rick's!"
Wht th fck! Wrds fl m
... "energy, environment and ethics"
In that order of importance, apparently.
"Wht th fck! Wrds fl m"
I don't know about your words, Eli, but your vowells certainly failed you.
If it is any consolation, the exponential rise of the Internets is making it more difficult for people like Mr. Harris to ply their intended trade. IMO, folks like Mr. Harris are employing a game strategy much like that used during the 1990s industry disinformation campaign regarding chlorinated organic compounds. In a media/communications environment with numerous sharp bottlenecks, that type of campaign can be effective based only upon Mark Twain's maxim that a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth put its boots on. As the time lag is reduced, the conferred advantage is reduced as well. The Internets are shrinking that time lag exponentially.
Yes, the internet does make Twain's statement obsolete.
A lie can travel ad infintum around the internet before truth gets out of the black hole that Exxon-Mobil dug for it.
JB -- I would respectfully suggest your comment is snide, cynical, uninformed and most of all, totally wrong.
Disinformation campaigns depend upon flawed and asymmetrical information networks because, by design, they contain demonstrably false information presented as true information. Once this information is shown to be false it is no longer useful. Shorten the lag time, decrease the asymmetry of information grid (ie. more equal access), increase interconnectedness, and the potential benefit of a disinformation campaign rapidly declines, and often backfires.
I remember the old Internets days, back when it was all CLI and all it gave you was obscure UNIX software and tiny photos of Cindy Crawford. Now it's all growed up and spreading truth like butter!
Actually, in all seriousness, I do agree that the internet is key in removing the bottlenecks that allow lies to spread faster. The lies still spread very fast, but truth is in its wake. Sometimes. And then bitterly argued by sock puppets.
"Once this information is shown to be false it is no longer usefull."
I guess that's why the AGW denialists have been so wildly unsuccessful over the past ten years when it comes to planting doubt about AGW (the time frame that also happens to correspond with the growth and widespread use of the internet).
As everyone knows, these denilaist types never use blogs and other websites to spread their disinformation. Never. And no would believe them even if they did (which they do not). No way.
Climate change is a fact of life. It has always happened and always will. Nothing we can do will change that. The best approach is to help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to climate change, cooling and warming. To try to "stop climate change" is clearly a mistake since progressively more scientists (and common sense) tell us we humans cause very little global climate change through our emissions of carbon dioxide (though land use change is appearing to be a significant cause). Yet, to this point, almost all the money is going into the idea that we can stop it, leaving many vulnerable people with little or no support in coping with it. A sad situation indeed.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Web: www.nrsp.com
Shorter Tom Harris: lalalalalala I can't hear the scientissssts! Lalalalala
This public service announcement brought to you by: the Institute for Identifying Common Sense.
Best,
D
I wonder if thats the real Harris? Why would you spam a blog post about how you come from a known denialist background?
Anyway, like the Discovery Institute, they have first year initiatives:
-------------
"Understanding Climate Change"
A proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy.
Second Priority Project:
"The Science Audit Centre"
The establishment of an independent and highly credible auditing mechanism to properly review scientific studies before they are employed as a basis of national and international environmental policy decisions
--------
I'm sure our Canadian posters can keep up sup to date on their propaganda. It will be interesting to see where they find their independent and credible scientists. THere don't seem to be any left.
"progressively more scientists (and common sense) tell us we humans cause very little global climate change through our emissions of carbon dioxide (though land use change is appearing to be a significant cause). Yet, to this point, almost all the money is going into the idea that we can stop it, leaving many vulnerable people with little or no support in coping with it. A sad situation indeed."
Progressively more scientists ? I thought it was quite vice-versa and the ones telling us CO2 doesn't contribute to climate change were ever-diminishing crowd of sad denialists ?
I quite don't buy your claim that all the money is going to the idea we can stop climate change, leaving vulnerable people without support. It's not question of either/or... We can put money into slowing climate change, changing our lifestyles AND helping the people living in poor, vulnerable areas that are going to be most severely hit.
Anyone claiming it's a question of either/or is being intentionally dishonest. Such as yourself, esteemed mr Tom Harris.
I doubt that that was the real Mr. Harris, but I did look at his link and note that Dr. Ball is no longer calling himself the first PhD in climatology in Canada. He also is no longer claiming that he was a professor of climatology for 32 28 whatever years. But that is a nice collection of articles he wrote for Country Guide Magazine. I guess that there was no room for his peer-reviewed publications.
However, in case you are the real Mr. Harris, how is Dr. Ball's legal action coming anyway?